Abe Solomon

INDIA TORN BY RELIGIOUS STRIFE

India, according to its constitution, is a secular state. However, this conception has been sorely tried in the last few months. The attack on the mosque at Ayodhya by Hindu fanatics led to a rash of violence across the country. The mosque is on a site claimed to be the birthplace of the Hindu god Rama -- although this is a mythical not historical suppostion. The Indian government has offered to organise the building of a mosque and temple on the site to try and end the conflict.

In March a further blow to Indian stability came with 13 bombs exploding in Bombay causing at least 250 deaths and 1,200 injured. So far no culprits have been found, but there are suspicions that religious extremists might have been behind it.

In response to the recent conflict the President of the Indian Secular Society, A. Solomon, issued a statement:

"The events leading to the demolition of the Babri Masjid at Ayodhya and their aftermath of communal carnage mark a watershed in the history of free India. These traumatic events clearly expose the fragile nature of secularism in our country. The cost in human lives and property in December 1992 -- January 1993 were beyond measure and may now take several years for those afflicted to restore their old means of livelihood.

"However, the crisis generated by the Ayodhya events go beyond the destruction of human lives and property. An almost unbridgeable gulf has been created between the two major communities in India. There is greater distrust and feelings of hostility today between the Hindus and Muslims than there ever was in the past. The militant Hindu is on the rise and has blatantly rebutted the belief that Hinduism is rooted in tolerance and compassion. The Muslim community, on the other hand, considerably shaken by these events, has become more vulnerable to the blandishments of their fundamentalist leaders.

"The increasingly strident propaganda unleashed by Hindu fundamentalist parties has also affected a large number of educated Hindus who have become more susceptible to the vicious arguments of the fundamentalists. There is no denying that India is faced with a crisis of unprecedented gravity. It is a crisis which may not only destroy the delicate fabric of secularism in India but also the democratic framework. Democracy in India can survive only if secularism survives in this country.

"One silver lining which we may discern in this dark and dismal scene is the newly awakened consciousness among some Hindus, and also some Muslims, of the vital necessity of promoting secularism in this country. Many have now come to realise that secularism is not just an abstract system of ideas but an essential prerequisite of a humane and pluralistic society. The very survival of the nation depends on its commitment to secularism. A large number of persons, particularly the young, have been startled into examining the basis of our society and the need to clearly define its nature and goals.

"The Indian Secular Society welcomes this new awareness, and more so, because the struggle to realise a secular and humane India has now become more difficult and hazardous. The fight is going to be long and protracted. Since its inception the Indian Secular Society has insisted that the Hindu-Muslim problem is essentially an aspect of the larger problem of the liberalisation and modernisation of Indian Society.

"What is therefore necessary, in order to ensure that Hindus and Muslims will not merely live together but also enter into a dynamic cooperative relationship, is the relegation of religion to the status of a personal relationship between the individual and his God. Unless this is done, both Hindu and Muslim communalists will continue to define the political and cultural identities of their communities exclusively in religious terms. If this is not done soon, the future for India is indeed dark. To promote a secular democratic movement in India is therefore the first task of those who believe in the need for developing an open, liberal and just social order in this country."

Sanal Edamaruku of the Indian Rationalist Association has also commented on the situation:

"Ever since the catastrophe at Ayodhya, where a group of well-trained Hindu volunteers demolished the controversial Babri mosque, while a huge crowd of more than 100,000 frenzied Hindu fanatics chanted slogans and danced, have seen India slowly slipping back to the sixteenth century... 'Ayodhya' was not an incident of a day. It was built up over years, while the so-called secular leaders played the politics of religion and caste for expediency without shame.'

He pointed out that Hindu fundamentalists now have other Muslim temples as their targets and the only hope is to separate religion from political parties. "My clear opinion is that the unsecular, fundamentalist political parties should be de-recognised by the Election Commission. Only those parties who accept the principle of separation of state and religion and stand for pluralist policy should be allowed to take part in elections."

The government must act strongly to promote harmony among different sections of the people. "It should have the courage to declare that the controversial site is closed for religious fights. By sanctioning idarsan and prayers for Hindus at the disputed site, the government has sanctioned crime and vandalism of the Hindu fundamentalists ...

"Re-constructing a mosque at the disputed site, or constructing a temple at the place of the demolished mosque will all add up to problems only. Moreover, it is not the government's business to construct mosque or temple by using public money. If the government feels that it should construct something at Ayodhya, I propose that a hospital be made there for the poor and needy people of that town. And if the fundamentalists -- Hindu and Muslim -- need something to be constructed at the disputed site for them, one can wall think of a mental asylum."